Talk

Flip

Politics

City devolution, Manchester & 'Northern Powerhouse' - any thoughts?

24 replies

Isitmebut · 14/05/2015 08:48

for quite a while now I've droned on about the public sector vs private sector imbalance of the UK economy, but of course there has been (like many other countries) a regional imbalance, usually north-south.

And in theory there should be no good reason for a north-south divide within the UK, as long as the political focus and investment from both government and the private sector can be put into place at the same time.

But clearly if it was that easy, we wouldn’t have heard about ‘the north, south divide’ for decades; so while any new government initiative should be welcomed, personally I’m not so sure.

”Radical' City Devolution Plans To Be Unveiled”

”The Chancellor will be in Greater Manchester later - the first area to be given more powers over spending under a mayor from 2017.”
news.sky.com/story/1483611/radical-city-devolution-plans-to-be-unveiled

”George Osborne is to unveil plans to give English cities an opportunity to elect their own mayor, who would receive greater powers over housing, policing and transport in their areas.”

That is because, rumour has it, I’m anti fat government and have no faith in the abilities of party apparatchiks of questionable abilities to locally spend taxpayers money wisely.

Indeed and I’m sorry if ignorantly stereotyping, while those up ‘t north view soft southerners and Conservative councils as ‘in bed with the private sector’, down here we view Labour Councils as mainly ‘in bed with themselves’ which can be even more taxpayer expensive, both in initiative and money terms for the local economy.

Now I get (like Scotland, England and Wales) devolved powers are in vogue, but is this REALLY a good idea and possibly a way to smooth out the inconsistencies of government/party policies coming from those in Westminster?

OP posts:

Report

claig · 14/05/2015 09:25

I don't like it. It is what the progressives have long advocated. It is part of the globalist trend which will lead to the weakening of nation states and the empowerment of regions, which is what suprnational power structures such as the EU want.

It will create another tier of government and bureaucrats with all the opportunity to grandstand and take on elected governments. Some cities have rejected the proposals to give them mayors and turn out in elections for electing mayors will generally be lower than for national elections and therefore they will not have a large mandate from the population of the cities and regions.

If progressives like it, then it may not be such a good thing.

This is from Matthew Taylor, who worked for Blair in the Number Ten Policy Unit

"As it is looking in to place, so it is looking out to the world. The brilliant public intellectual Benjamin Barber is completing a new book with the compelling title 'if mayors ruled the world'. In it he argues that global networks of city leaders are making change in ways which seem unattainable for international institutions of nation states. Barber links this to the greater legitimacy of local leaders and their more practical problem solving orientation.

This is not a new idea. It is, after all, fifty years since Daniel Bell said something along the lines of 'in the modern world, the nation state will be too big for the small things in life and too small for the big things'. But whether it is Barber, Richard Florida or Edward Glaeser (to name but three) the contrast between the optimism of urban commentators and the pessimism of those who focus on nations and multinational institutions is striking."

www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/matthew-taylor-blog/2012/10/inter-city-thoughts/

And here is the intellectual Benjamin Barber that Matthew Taylor mentions

"Why Mayors Should Rule the World"

The European: You suggest that cities are not only better suited for battling cross-border problems but also allow for a more representative form of democracy. What is wrong with the nation state?

Barber: It’s too big for internal democratic participation and yet too small for our globalized, interdependent world.
...
The European: Do you think that a local sense of belonging will replace the national one?

Barber: Yes I do. Identifying us as nationals of a given state only points to things like a distant national identity, tax collection or possibly military engagements.
...
The European: In Britain, the central government was for a long time afraid of powerful mayors. The popularity of Boris Johnson seems to confirm that notion.

Barber: The same was true for New York’s former mayor, Michael Bloomberg. Three years ago, in a speech he gave at the MIT, he highlighted that he controlled a police force that is larger than certain national armies, that his city had its own relation to the UN and that it even had its own foreign policy. He said: “Washington doesn’t like it, but I don’t really care about that”. It’s understandable that national governments are deeply worried about the power of certain mayors.

The European: Even though the nation states still have instruments to control local politics.

Barber: They do indeed have jurisdictional, legal and financial control over cities and regions. So they can undermine and shape local politics. But that’s a short-term power. In the long run, the city will prevail because it is home to the majority of the population. There will be formations of “urban political parties” that organize around the power of cities, focus on the needs of urban dwellers and will ultimately be able to control national politics and gain more political autonomy for their city.
...
The European: But you still want the state to fulfill certain functions?

Barber: I am a political scientist and I am not so foolish as to think that the nation state will go anywhere. I am merely recognizing the reality of this shift of power towards cities and I believe that it is a good thing – not only for transparency and democracy, but also for global governance

www.theeuropean-magazine.com/benjamin-r-barber/8270-why-mayors-should-rule-the-world

I think the EU will love it because it will help the move towards "global govrenance". No longer will we jut have a metropolitan elite, but eventually global elite.

I think it will end up weakening the UK and creatng tenson between regions and the nation, and I think that will be a bad thing for the nation and the people. Regions will be easier for supranational global governance institutions such as the EU to control than nations and the global elite will be able to carry out global governance more easily.